In the News
News Journal: State to appeal ruling on political secrecy
By Allen Dickerson
The voter guide at issue in the lawsuit is a nonpartisan voter guide that does not promote any candidates. It simply provides information on how each candidate stands on a variety of issues. The core of the lawsuit asks whether a group that publishes voter guides that do not promote candidates can be subjected to the full panoply of regulations applied to candidates, parties and PACs, including the public disclosure of small donors.
Gov. Jack Markell’s office has issued a number of public statements confusing this very point. Delaware’s law is breathtakingly broad precisely because it makes no effort to distinguish between political advocacy for particular candidates and the mere discussion of issues and candidate positions. That is why the court said the law was “too broadly worded” to stand up to the scrutiny required by the First Amendment.
Vice: Ohio Bans Campaign Lies, but the Supreme Court Might Soon Change That
By Thor Benson
Brad Smith, who founded the Center for Competitive Politics, agrees. His organization bills itself as “the nation’s largest organization dedicated solely to protecting First Amendment political rights.”
Smith told VICE News that Ohio’s ban “very clearly has a chilling effect on people speaking.” He also believes that the method of determining what amounts to a lie is too vague. “There’s no stated evidentiary standard for making that determination,” he said.
Defining what constitutes a lie is the major issue. Having worked in Ohio, Smith has seen the state’s law cited in petty claims involving smaller campaigns. He said that a candidate who prints bumper stickers that place his or her name alongside “State Representative, 2014” when they’re running for office can be accused of lying because the sticker doesn’t say “for State Representative,” suggesting that the candidate is an incumbent.
IRS
Wall Street Journal: House Republicans Intensify Probe Into IRS
By John D. McKinnon
The potential Justice Department role emerged last week, when a conservative group, Judicial Watch, released a batch of emails showing that a Justice official last year talked with a top IRS official, Lois Lerner, about seeking criminal prosecutions of some politically active tax-exempt groups. The Justice official was following up on an idea publicly floated by Democratic lawmakers, who believed some groups were abusing their tax-exempt status.
GOP lawmakers said on Wednesday in a news release that a previously undisclosed email suggests the Justice official who contacted Ms. Lerner was doing so at the request of someone else. According to the GOP release, Richard Pilger, director of the Justice Department’s election crimes branch, “noted via e-mail to Lerner on May 8th 2013, `I have been asked to run something by you.’” The release says that the e-mail does not indicate who had asked Mr. Pilfer to contact Ms. Lerner. She is at the center of congressional investigations into the IRS targeting of conservative tea-party groups.
Independent Groups
NRSC: Daybreak (April 24th)
By Brad Dayspring
Turns out that over the last few months, we’ve picked up on the fact that each time the DSCC sends an “important message” to voters of a battleground state, a liberal outside group quickly adheres to the message by producing an ad to be run on television. In other words, anytime the DSCC sends an “important message,” it is a directive to outside groups to run an “uncoordinated” ad (since, you know coordination would be illegal). Pretty confident in our theory, yesterday we made an open bet that by Cinco De Mayo, Reid’s Majority PAC would run an ad in New Hampshire that closely follows the script provided by the DSCC/Shaheen (we also note the hypocrisy of Shaheen ranting about the “people’s pledge” to limit outside money while posting images scripts for sources of outside money to run ads).
Turns out we gave Majority PAC too much credit. Less than 24 hours after receiving the directive from the DSCC, Senate Majority PAC has reserved hundreds of thousands of dollars of air time in Manchester New Hampshire. Remember, coordination would be illegal, so Democrats are trying their best to find ways to subvert (or work around) the law.
This isn’t the first time we’ve seen this pattern, but it is the most egregious. Check out the following examples…
SCOTUS/Judiciary
NY Times: Judge Rejects New York Limit on Donations to ‘Super PACs’
By THOMAS KAPLAN
A federal judge on Thursday struck down New York State’s limit on contributions to independent groups that spend money supporting political candidates, a move that could unleash large spending by so-called super PACs in state races.
New York imposes a $150,000 limit on an individual’s annual political contributions. The judge, Paul A. Crotty of Federal District Court in Manhattan, ruled that such a limit was a violation of the First Amendment when it was applied to independent groups.
The CT Mirror: DGA challenges Connecticut’s campaign finance restrictions
By MARK PAZNIOKAS
The association seeks an injunction barring the State Elections Enforcement Commission, the chief state’s attorney’s office and the attorney general from enforcing what it says are overly broad rules that could expose the group to an accusation of illegal coordination with the Malloy campaign.
In part, the lawsuit is a pre-emptive move against any claim that Malloy’s fundraising for the group should be construed as illegal coordination under state law, which could either keep the association, the DGA, on the sidelines in Connecticut or expose it to prosecution.
“DGA has been forced into a constitutionally untenable choice: it can avoid the protected speech in which it seeks to engage; it can forego the support and participation of Connecticut’s citizens in raising the funds that it needs to maintain a robust national program; or it can entertain the very real threats of investigation, fines and criminal prosecution,” the lawsuit states.
Reuters: In defense of political lying
By Jack Shafer
If you read closely, you can almost glean a laugh track from the transcripts (pdf) of the oral arguments presented to the Supreme Court on Tuesday in the political lying case, Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus. The justices sprayed gentle ridicule and subtle sarcasm on Ohio State Solicitor Eric E. Murphy as he attempted to defend a state law that bans false statements during a political campaign.
Uniform enforcement of the Ohio law — and the dozen and a half other similar state laws — would reduce our political campaigns to what? Three or four months of observed silence before each Election Day?
More Soft Money Hard Law: A Constitutional “Right to Participate” in the Electoral Process?
By Bob Bauer
McCutcheon v. FEC, 134 S.Ct. 1434, 1440-41 (2014). The right that Roberts cites—the right to participate in the electoral process—is apparently wide in scope and includes a “variety of activities,” including voting. So Marty notes that this rationale does not spring from pure “free speech” jurisprudence, and indeed he argues that “if there were such a basic right, the opinion would make much more internal sense than if viewed through a Free Speech Clause” lens. While disclaiming “naiveté” about the Roberts Court’s commitment to the interests of voters, Marty asserts that if “taken seriously,” this freshly minted right to participate could “be the source of a new flourishing of voting rights and other election-related rights.”
Disclosure
Politico: The left’s secret club plans for 2014, 2016
Some of the country’s biggest Democratic donors — including Tom Steyer and Jonathan Soros — are huddling behind closed doors next week in Chicago with union bigwigs and progressive superstars like Bill de Blasio to plan how to pull their party — and the country — to the left.
The setting is the annual spring meeting of the Democracy Alliance, a secretive club of wealthy liberals that’s the closest thing the left has to the vaunted Koch brothers’ political network.
National Review: Landrieu’s Koch Insincerity: Louisiana Senate Democrat won’t discuss her ties with the Dems’ favorite scapegoats.
By Andrew Johnson
Earlier this year, the Washington Free Beacon reported that the Landrieu had received $35,000 from KochPAC since 2000, including $15,000 of which had come in this election cycle. Since 2007, the year before her most recent election, Landrieu ranks second among Democrats in receiving contributions from the brothers’ PAC.
Landrieu’s $31,000 haul since 2007 puts her just behind Arkansas Senator Mark Pryor, who raked in $35,000 from the donors Reid denounced as “un-American” during a February Senate speech, according to Gannett’s Paul C. Barton.
Candidates, Politicians, Campaigns, and Parties
Washington Post: How wealthy campaign donors may reduce political polarization and weaken the tea party
By ADAM BONICA AND JENNY SHEN
Grouping Republican candidates by ideology reveals that the decision is good news for some but very bad news for others. The most conservative Republicans have raised only a small fraction from top donors compared to their less conservative counterparts. The top donors similarly favor more moderate Democrats to those who are more extreme, but the differences are less stark.
Politicians
The Hill: McCain predicts ‘major scandal’ on campaign finance
By Rebecca Shabad
“We’re at the height of corruption thanks to the United States Supreme Court,” said McCain, adding that their rulings on campaign finance rules are a “disgrace.”
“I predict there will be a major scandal because there is too much money washing around,” he said, adding that people don’t know where it comes from.
NY Times: Rand Paul and Wealthy Libertarians Connect as He Weighs Running
By NICHOLAS CONFESSORE
As he has risen in prominence as a Republican presidential contender, Mr. Paul is avidly courting a small but influential cluster of wealthy libertarians. His pursuit offers an intriguing window into an eclectic network of potential donors who have made fortunes in Silicon Valley start-ups and Wall Street hedge funds, a group that could form a vital donor base if he makes a bid for the Republican nomination. A tight-knit tribe of philanthropists and entrepreneurs, they have exerted enormous intellectual influence on conservative policy. But they have historically spent more on nonprofit groups and endowing college economics departments than they have on backing candidates.
